Author Topic: Liberalism in the military is over the top as well (Read 2465 times)

carbineman · « **on:** May 09, 2011, 02:13:42 PM »

With your tax dollars to boot.

Navy Authorizes Chaplains to Perform
Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ in Naval Chapels
Cybercast News Service, by Pete Winn

Original Article

Anticipating the elimination of the military ban on homosexuality, the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains has decided that same-sex couples in the Navy will be able to get married in Navy chapels, and that Navy chaplains will be allowed to perform the ceremonies -- if homosexual marriage is legal in the state where the unions are to be performed. The advisory came in the form of an April 13 memo issued to all chaplains, in which the Chief of Navy Chaplains, Admiral Michael Tidd, said the Chaplain Corps was revising its Tier I training manuals.......Not a complete article but you get the gest of it.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/navy-authorizes-chaplains-perform-same-s

Junior1942 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2011, 02:16:03 PM »

And this is a problem becaause.......?

wreckhog · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2011, 02:30:05 PM »

Good stuff starts at around 48 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTwq1_9VH68

billy_56081 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2011, 02:55:27 PM »

What if a chaplain would refuse to perform homo marrages? TNel can you weigh in on this?

XD40SC · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2011, 02:59:59 PM »

I wonder if we will also have to pay for their birth control methods??

powderman · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2011, 03:38:34 PM »

Quote from: Junior1942 on May 09, 2011, 02:16:03 PM

And this is a problem becaause.......?

junior. Not surprised at your attitude at all. They are abominations. Nuff said??

BILLY. I read in the TURRETT, a Ft Knox newspaper, that the aetheists are lobbying for their own CHAPLAIN.

XD. I refrain from answering, even though it's killing me.

POWDERMAN.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2011, 09:38:30 PM »

The atheists chaplains will be arriving in the little car. All 29 of them. Keep watching the center ring.

(Where's that picture of Wu?)

XD40SC · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2011, 01:49:24 AM »

Atheism - is nothing sacred??

no guns here · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2011, 03:19:58 AM »

It's not the Chaplains that are the liberals... It's the civilian leadership that forced this down their throats.

NGH

guzzijohn · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2011, 03:24:54 AM »

Quote from Powderman:

Quote

junior. Not surprised at your attitude at all. They are abominations. Nuff said??

According to your religious interpretation which should not influence government IMHO.
GuzziJohn

powderman · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2011, 07:56:04 AM »

guzzi. What would an aetheist chaplain do?? Encourage people to reject Christ?? Maybe visit the wounded and tell them that God did this to you?? They would serve no legitimate purpose, other than to get paid for doing nothing worthwhile to anybody but those just like them. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2011, 08:15:33 AM »

Why would it matter if on a federal base as it is federal ground not state ground . just asking .

no guns here · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2011, 08:22:36 AM »

Chaplain's exist to tend to the spiritual needs of all troops. Atheists, by definition have no spiritual needs so therefore no need for the services of a chaplain. By definition there can not be an atheist chaplain either.

NGH

powderman · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2011, 08:46:40 AM »

Quote from: no guns here on May 10, 2011, 08:22:36 AM

Chaplain's exist to tend to the spiritual needs of all troops. Atheists, by definition have no spiritual needs so therefore no need for the services of a chaplain. By definition there can not be an atheist chaplain either.

NGH

NGH. Exactly.
SHOOTALL. Not sure I understand your question, if it was for me. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2011, 09:31:21 AM »

For anyone , why must state law be respected when on federal land ?

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #15 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:33:27 PM »

Shootall, good point, seeing as how federal law, supersedes state law

powderman · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:42:12 PM »

Quote from: Pat/Rick on May 10, 2011, 12:33:27 PM

Shootall, good point, seeing as how federal law, supersedes state law

TRUE, but Gods law supercedes both. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2011, 02:47:15 AM »

Powderman, with all respect I agree with you , but in America our fore fathers set up a govt. that is run by those we elect. For some time now the elected have found ways to insure (buy) vote with liberal ideas. Our churches stayed out of politics for a long time, our laws have been defined by liberal judges with a goal in mind. It will stop when good men and women force the elected to get back on track. It will most likely take a consitution convention to do it by redefining the courts power . Or freedoms need to be defined and limits put on those attacking it. Look at gun control it is very stright forward what our freedoms with regard to it the consitution are yet we debate it in court all the time. I guess what is the problem is the freedom of gays is being respected while the freedoms of those wishing not to have it thrust into their faces is not. Some call it progress fostered by progressives , it is more trashing our consitution by those trying to destory America.
As for the military , it hasen't worked there yet. Will troops turn their backs on those who mary gays ? Will those ordered to mary gays retire ?

MGMorden · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2011, 06:54:10 AM »

Quote

while the freedoms of those wishing not to have it thrust into their faces is not

Every time you start to try to define freedom in terms of "freedom from" or "freedom to not" then you're already missing the point. You're trying to twist the word freedom into something to keep other people from doing something. Once that door is open the entire concept looses all meaning. The anti-gun group now wants "freedom to not have everyone walking down the street with a gun". The anti-free speech people want "freedom from having to hear criticisms against the government". Once you start trying to word it that way then essentially freedom can be used to disallow any other action. Ice cream can be made illegal because people want "freedom from having to watch people eat the frozen milk abomination!".

Go back to "freedom to", not "freedom from". You have a freedom to live your life. That necessitates laws against murder. You have a freedom to enjoy your possessions. That necessitates laws against theft. However as soon as the base definition goes into "freedom from" or "freedom to not" then you're syntactically trying to back into a definition where you're trying to use the word "freedom" to destroy the concept it embodies.

This country, and world in general, would do well to just stop stepping into peoples' business. I'm not religious, but someone praying (to whatever deity they feel like, whether that's Jehovah, Alla, Zeus, or Micky Mouse) before their meals doesn't hurt me. Have it it. I'm not gay, but a gay couple doesn't affect me nor anyone else. Let them do what they want. And of course, I do own guns, but if the people who don't own them would adopt the same attitude (ie, let the people who choose to own guns and shoot do so), then I wouldn't have to worry constantly about attacks against my 2nd amendment rights.

Live and let live people.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2011, 07:56:51 AM »

Quote

Liberalism in the military...

Well, the military has Americans in it. Real Americans. Lots them are liberals. Some will get more so, as they gain wisdom and get past provincial prejudices.

Casull · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2011, 08:03:15 AM »

MG, the problem is that those that want "gay marriage" want the government and society to acknowledge it. They have the freedom right now to have some "minister" perform their ceremony and then to live any way they like. What they want is the government to enforce the rights of married couples in their cases, or in other words, they want society to be forced to recognize and accept their "marriages".

guzzijohn · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2011, 08:54:54 AM »

Quote from Casull:

Quote

MG, the problem is that those that want "gay marriage" want the government and society to acknowledge it. They have the freedom right now to have some "minister" perform their ceremony and then to live any way they like. What they want is the government to enforce the rights of married couples in their cases, or in other words, they want society to be forced to recognize and accept their "marriages".

Why is that a problem, it is a marriage between to people, shouldn't the government recognize that?
GuzziJohn

MGMorden · « **Reply #22 on:** May 11, 2011, 08:55:55 AM »

Quote from: Casull on May 11, 2011, 08:03:15 AM

MG, the problem is that those that want "gay marriage" want the government and society to acknowledge it. They have the freedom right now to have some "minister" perform their ceremony and then to live any way they like. What they want is the government to enforce the rights of married couples in their cases, or in other words, they want society to be forced to recognize and accept their "marriages".

I agree with you to some degree here, but realistically, marriage is a religiously rooted concept to begin with.

The government shouldn't have a role in marriage period, which is why a lot of people support the government solely recognizing a civil partnership. You'd get married in the religious institution of your choice, and the ceremony would be religious in nature, just like a Baptism, Christening, Bar Mitzvah, etc. No legal aspect to it. If certain churches or groups don't want to perform these ceremonies for gay couples then so be it, and vice versa. As part or your 1st ammendment rights you can chose to attend an establishment that doesn't perform or recognize gay marriages if you want. That's part of the religious aspect of it and is up to individual groups.

After the marriage though, couples who wanted a legal aspect to their union could file for a civil partnership. That would allow for most of the legal aspects that are now afforded to married couples. IE, filing of joint taxes, child custody rights, hospital visitation rights, estate inheritance at death, etc. I don't see where the government should care WHO files for this type of partnership, be it a straight couple, gay couple, or just two roommates. It's a legal arrangement that can be enacted and dissolved as the parties wish.

The thing is too many or too hung up on the word "marriage" being attached to the legal (rather than the religious) side of things that they want to fight tooth and nail against any type of change there.

Casull · « **Reply #23 on:** May 11, 2011, 09:14:44 AM »

Quote

Why is that a problem, it is a marriage between to people, shouldn't the government recognize that?
GuzziJohn

If it doesn't matter what sex the parties are, why should it matter that there are only to (sic) people? Why not allow polygamy?

MGMorden · « **Reply #24 on:** May 11, 2011, 09:46:42 AM »

Quote from: Casull on May 11, 2011, 09:14:44 AM

Quote
Why is that a problem, it is a marriage between to people, shouldn't the government recognize that?
GuzziJohn

If it doesn't matter what sex the parties are, why should it matter that there are only to (sic) people? Why not allow polygamy?

From a legal perspective, only people can enter into a binding contract. You couldn't enter into a civil partnership with a goat anymore than you could setup a rental agreement with one.

As to polygamy, again, that's related to marriage and is a religious thing. People do religious-only polygamous marriages already. If various religious groups choose to perform (or not perform) them then IMHO that's their right under the first ammendment. The government shouldn't interfere with that.

For the legal side, there is already a very established way of dividing things up amongst a 2 party contract like this so it's easy to setup a civil partnership between 2 parties. If the groundwork was laid for larger numbers then I personally wouldn't care though. It would be somewhat similar to setting up a corporation IMHO. Not quite the same as the group wouldn't get independent personhood, but essentially setup much the same for sharing personal assets rather than business.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2011, 09:54:26 AM »

Quote from: MGMorden on May 11, 2011, 06:54:10 AM

Quote
while the freedoms of those wishing not to have it thrust into their faces is not[/quo

Go back to "freedom to", not "freedom from". You have a freedom to live your life. That necessitates laws against murder. You have a freedom to enjoy your possessions. That necessitates laws against theft. However as soon as the base definition goes into "freedom from" or "freedom to not" then you're syntactically trying to back into a definition where you're trying to use the word "freedom" to destroy the concept it embodies.

This country, and world in general, would do well to just stop stepping into peoples' business.

Your freedom stops where mine starts and the same in return. So you are saying that in the laws of our nation where it says the govt. can NOT search with out a warrant that is bad ? You play with the words but should we not have the right to enjoy life also. Should a man in the military not be able to shower and not have to look around to see if a gay is praticing voyeurism ?

Casull · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2011, 09:58:51 AM »

Quote

From a legal perspective, only people can enter into a binding contract. You couldn't enter into a civil partnership with a goat anymore than you could setup a rental agreement with one.

MG, I think you misunderstood my post. I was referring to "two" people (Guzzi misspelled it as "to").

MGMorden · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2011, 10:07:30 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on May 11, 2011, 09:54:26 AM

Your freedom stops where mine starts and the same in return. So you are saying that in the laws of our nation where it says the govt. can NOT search with out a warrant that is bad ? You play with the words but should we not have the right to enjoy life also. Should a man in the military not be able to shower and not have to look around to see if a gay is practicing voyeurism ?

The government is not a person. It can't have "freedom". The search and seizure process including due process exist as a portion of law enforcement, and are about bringing to justice those that have broken laws that we deem necessary. The government needs a warrant because outside of proper evidence you have the right to be secure on your property.

Your right to "enjoy your life" however, is completely subjective. You can't make laws that establish that everyone must be happy. What if you can't possibly endure the thought of people around you owning guns and you cannot enjoy your life unless they're rounded up? The answer is tough stuff because in the end that's your own mental hangups with the actions of OTHER PEOPLE that are not affecting you. What if the military man in the shower really, really has a problem with people using liquid body wash instead of bar soap? Are we going to go after that to so that he can enjoy his life? Of course not. He needs to learn to let go of things that do not affect him. If other people doing things with no direct effect on his life bother him, then that's simply his own problem that he needs to overcome. Whether that be Mormons, hippies, or a paranoid complex that other dudes might catch a glimpse of his package.

MGMorden · « **Reply #28 on:** May 11, 2011, 10:08:48 AM »

Quote from: Casull on May 11, 2011, 09:58:51 AM

Quote
From a legal perspective, only people can enter into a binding contract. You couldn't enter into a civil partnership with a goat anymore than you could setup a rental agreement with one.

MG, I think you misunderstood my post. I was referring to "two" people (Guzzi misspelled it as "to").

Ah, yes I did then. Disregard the first line of the response. The second portion does address the rest of it though.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #29 on:** May 11, 2011, 10:13:01 AM »

Like I said a gay praticing voyeurism not a gut looking down at the wrong moment. With your line of thought it should be male and females all showering togather. I feel we should respect traditional behavior you must not.
Didn't say govt was a person , we are free from govt .